Correction at end of paragraph one: “each state respectively.” I doubt that and respectfulness was involved.
Generally speaking, Sean is a putz. With great minds like Levin and Rush around, who needs a lightweight like Hannity?
That worked out well didn't it?
Now we have external influence picking the Senator that is supposed to be representing YOUR State.
Correction to correction in comment #2. Any respectfulness, not “and respectfulness.”
Dickey the toe sucker is on Hannity *again*
He says voters like Palin, they like Huckabee and they like.....*Sean says Newt* they like.....*Sean says Newt* they like.....*Sean says Newt* ..Uh Newt...
It’s so ridiculous.
Hannity is still around?
Without weighing how correct or not the author is about any expectations of WHAT the effects of the 17th amendment were, or would still be, those effects, while maybe laudable, were NOT the core purpose of the 17rh amendment, and its requirement that federal Senators be selected by their respective state legislatures.
That core purpose is more related to what was suppose to be the federal structure of the republic than the possible corollary effects of the mandate of the 17th amendment. That core purpose of the 17th amendment was that the Senate was intended to represent "the states" of the united republic, as entities requiring direct representation for them, in their own right, just as "the people" of the united republic have their direct representation in the House of Representatives.
The method of selecting senators required by the 17th amendment was chosen BECAUSE it meant that "the states", as sovereign entities of the united republic CHOSE THEIR representatives to the federal body intended to represent THEM, not "the people" at large. THAT is why its repeal was destructive - it severely reduced the federal nature of the republic, by eliminating the DIRECT representation of the states in the federal legislature.
This stuff always cracks me up. One, that Hannity is so ignorant. And two, that anyone thinks the 17th amendment has anything to do with our troubles.
The man is more partisan than conservative.
If people think repealing the 17th amendment will solve anything, they only need look at the recent record of lame dumbass corrupt liberal nobodies who got appointed last term in the Senate to be proved wrong. We had 6 of them and if *any* of them were in the top half of ‘good senators’ I didnt notice.
They were dregs.
Burris in Illinois - a left liberal Obama rubber stamp, Blago appointed and a joke
Bennett in Co - appointed, now elected. What’s the difference.
Some left-liberal nobody from Delaware.
In Florida, Charlie Crist’s right hand man. Strong conservative? NOT! Marco Rubio is so much better ... yet Marco would not have been Senator under appointment system.
There you go. Repeal the 17th amendment and you’ll get the same group of smug political elitists, except it will be HARDER to get rid ofthem because they will be indirectly and not directly accountable to voters.
Hey, where’s my courtesy ping?
Dear G-d, they never stop with this!
I still don’t want Mike Madigan appointing my Senators!